
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{l D{.}{.}{3.5} D{.}{.}{3.5} D{.}{.}{3.5} D{.}{.}{3.5}}
\toprule
 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{External Efficacy} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Satisfaction with Democracy} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Internal Efficacy} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Political Interest} \\
\midrule
Group 2                 & 0.07       & -0.03      & 0.17       & 0.12       \\
                        & (0.09)     & (0.09)     & (0.12)     & (0.10)     \\
Wave 3                  & -0.20^{**} & -0.14^{*}  & 0.00       & 0.04       \\
                        & (0.09)     & (0.08)     & (0.11)     & (0.10)     \\
Group 2 $\times$ Wave 3 & -0.13      & -0.03      & -0.11      & -0.13      \\
                        & (0.13)     & (0.12)     & (0.17)     & (0.14)     \\
(Intercept)             & 3.01^{***} & 3.76^{***} & 3.26^{***} & 3.38^{***} \\
                        & (0.06)     & (0.06)     & (0.08)     & (0.07)     \\
\midrule
R$^2$                   & 0.02       & 0.01       & 0.00       & 0.00       \\
N                       & 823        & 827        & 822        & 830        \\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\tiny{\footnotesize $^{***}p<0.01$; $^{**}p<0.05$; $^{*}p<0.1$}}
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\caption{The effect of temporary disenfranchisement. Presented estimates capture the results from DiD-specifications comparing groups 1 and 2 across waves1 and 3. Based on a birthdates sample with bandwidth 150.}
\label{table:coefficients}
\end{center}
\end{table}
